Opinion
No. 05-07-01328-CR
Opinion Filed September 8, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2.
On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 2, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F07-51718-I.
Before Justices BRIDGES, FITZGERALD, and LANG. Opinion By Justice LANG.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Ruben Sanchez waived a jury and pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. The trial court assessed punishment at ten years' imprisonment. In three issues, appellant contends his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the United States and Texas Constitutions and the trial court abused its discretion by imposing such sentence. The factual context and procedural background of this case are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them here. Because all dispositive issues are clearly settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(a), 47.4. We affirm the trial court's judgment. Appellant concedes his sentence is within the statutorily authorized range of punishment for the offense committed. However, he contends that in light of his remorse, willingness to accept responsibility, general good character, and limited involvement in the offense, "the only equitable punishment would have been probation." He argues his sentence is "grossly disproportionate to the offense." The State asserts appellant waived error by failing to object to his sentence as being grossly disproportionate. Further, the State argues, even if error had been preserved, appellant's sentence does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the United States and Texas Constitutions. Therefore, the State asserts, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. To preserve error on appeal, a party must present to the trial court a timely request, motion, or objection, state the specific grounds therefore, and obtain a ruling that appears in the record. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). Even constitutional rights, including the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, may be waived. Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.). The record shows appellant did not object to his sentence as violating his constitutional rights at the time it was imposed. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). Further, appellant did not file a motion for new trial raising the issues he asserts on appeal. See id.; Castaneda, 135 S.W.3d at 723. Appellant asserts, "Even if this court finds that error was not properly preserved, it is clear that if an error rises to the level of constitutional infirmity, it may be addressed for the first time on appeal." However, appellant cites no authority for that proposition. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i). Based on the record, we conclude appellant has not preserved any of his three issues for appellate review. Accordingly, we decide against appellant on his three issues. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.